On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:14:22 +0000 Rui Miguel Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 16:49 +0100, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 15:05:04 +0100 > > Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This is perfectly false in case of static linking as well. The > > > distiction between derivative works and compilations is not that > > > hard to grasp. Statically linked executable is a mere aggregation > > > of a bunch of preexisting works. It is the same as an archive > > > containing same bunch of dynamically linked components. > > > > FSF: the truth: Terekov: > > <--- /|\ ---> > > In this case, I'd place Stefaan right just before Terekov. > > Terekov seems determined to undermine the idea of all users being Free. > The FSF tries to empower all users with Freedom. > > If empowering with Freedom is as far from the truth as Terekov in such a > scale, then you're just plain presumptuous. Mind you, I'm _not_ talking about the moral issue here, but about the probable (IANAL, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a test case) legal status of binaries as derivative works. I believe a case can be made that a statically linked binary, through the fact that it contains, in a single unit not designed as an archive, code from the program and the library(ies), is a derivative work of them all. I also believe that a dynamically linked executable, which contains no code from the libraries it references, would not be held to be a derivative work. It is also quite clear to anyone reading the American (USA) copyright statutes that requiring a library, or anything, to run is _not_ a criterion for a derivative work. I further believe that pretending this is the case opens a can of worms better left shut. I'd like your opinion on that, BTW. But as I have stated quite clearly and unambiguously, I do not feel it's OK to ignore the wishes of the author or copyright holder, even if these do not seem to be conform to the definitions in the law. There's honour, and there's the law, and they don't meet all that often. > There's not a requirement for a middle ground at everything. There are very few _requirements_ for a middle ground, don't you agree? Most often though, when there are two extreme viewpoints, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And as I said, the status of a binary as a derivative work is a legal issue, not a moral one (which you seem intent on ignoring). Consider that, for once. -- Stefaan -- As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning, and meaningful statements lose precision. -- Lotfi Zadeh _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss